Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 151, Issue 3, pp 553–564 | Cite as

Wildflower areas within revitalized agricultural matrices boost small mammal populations but not breeding Barn Owls

  • Raphaël Arlettaz
  • Markus Krähenbühl
  • Bettina Almasi
  • Alexandre Roulin
  • Michael Schaub
Original Article

Abstract

Agro-ecosystems have recently experienced dramatic losses of biodiversity due to more intensive production methods. In order to increase species diversity, agri-environment schemes provide subsidies to farmers who devote a fraction of their land to ecological compensation areas (ECAs). Several studies have shown that invertebrate biodiversity is actually higher in ECAs than in nearby intensively cultivated farmland. It remains poorly understood, however, to what extent ECAs also favour vertebrates, such as small mammals and their predators, which would contribute to restoring functional food chains within revitalised agricultural matrices. We studied small mammal populations among eight habitat types—including wildflower areas, a specific ECA in Switzerland—and habitat selection (radiotracking) by the Barn Owl Tyto alba, one of their principal predators. Our prediction was that habitats with higher abundances of small mammals would be more visited by foraging Barn Owls during the period of chicks’ provisioning. Small mammal abundance tended to be higher in wildflower areas than in any other habitat type. Barn Owls, however, preferred to forage in cereal fields and grassland. They avoided all types of crops other than cereals, as well as wildflower areas, which suggests that they do not select their hunting habitat primarily with respect to prey density. Instead of prey abundance, prey accessibility may play a more crucial role: wildflower areas have a dense vegetation cover, which may impede access to prey for foraging owls. The exploitation of wildflower areas by the owls might be enhanced by creating open foraging corridors within or around wildflower areas. Wildflower areas managed in that way might contribute to restore functional links in food webs within agro-ecosystems.

Keywords

Ecological compensation areas Agro-ecosystems Small mammals Species conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Adrian Aebischer, Jean-Pierre Airoldi, Janine Aschwanden, Iris Baumgartner, Julien Béguin, Otto Holzgang, Alan Juilland, Olivier Roth and Christine Wisler for their assistance. Special thanks also to the farmers who authorised captures on their land and to Juliet Vickery for corrections of the English of an earlier version of the manuscript and for constructive criticism.

References

  1. Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE (1993) Compositional analysis of use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altwegg R, Roulin A, Kestenholz M, Jenni L (2003) Variation and covariation in survival, dispersal, and population size in barn owls Tyto alba. J Anim Ecol 72:391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altwegg R, Roulin A, Kestenholz M, Jenni L (2006) Demographic effects of extreme winter weather in the barn owl. Oecologica 149:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altwegg R, Schaub M, Roulin A (2007) Age-specific fitness components and their temporal variation in the barn owl. Am Nat 169:47–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arlettaz R (1999) Habitat selection as a major resource portioning mechanism between the two sympatric sibling bat species Myotis myotis and Myotis blythii. J Anim Ecol 68:460–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aschwanden J, Birrer S, Jenni L (2005) Are ecological compensation areas attractive hunting sites for common kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) and long-eared owls (Asio otus)? J Ornithol 146:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aschwanden J, Holzgang O, Jenni L (2007) Importance of ecological compensation areas for small mammals in intensively farmed areas. Wildl Biol 13:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Askew NP, Searle JB, Moore NP (2007) Agri-environment schemes and foraging of barn owls Tyto alba. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkinson PW, Fuller RJ, Vickery JA, Conway GJ, Tallowin JRB, Smith REN, Haysom KA, Ings TC, Asteraki EJ, Brown VK (2005) Influence of agricultural management, sward structure and food resources on grassland field use by birds in lowland England. J Appl Ecol 42:932–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker JA, Brooks RJ (1981) Distribution patterns of raptors in relation to density of meadow voles. Condor 83:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bechard MJ (1982) Effect of vegetative cover on foraging site by Swainson’s hawk. Condor 84:153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birrer S, Spiess M, Herzog F, Jenny M, Kohli L, Lugrin B (2007) The Swiss agri-environment scheme promotes farmland birds: but only moderately. J Ornithol 148:S295–S303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Briner T, Nentwig W, Airoldi J-P (2005) Habitat quality of wildflower strips for common voles (Microtus arvalis) and its relevance for agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Britschgi A, Spaar R, Arlettaz R (2006) Impact of grassland farming intensification on the breeding ecology of an indicator insectivorous passerine, the Whinchat Saxicola rubetra: lessons for overall Alpine meadowland management. Biol Conserv 130:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buner F (1998) Habitat use of wintering Kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) in relation to perch availability, vole abundance and spatial distribution. Diploma Thesis, University of Basel, Swiss Ornithological Institute SempachGoogle Scholar
  17. Burkhardt M, Schmid H (2001) Vögel der Schweiz. Schweizerische Vogelwarte, SempachGoogle Scholar
  18. Dickman CR, Predavec M, Lynam AJ (1991) Differential predation of size and sex classes of mice by the barn owl, Tyto alba. Oikos 62:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Estabrook CB, Estabrook GF (1989) Actus: a solution to the problem of small samples in the analysis of two-way contingency tables. Hist Methods 82:5–8Google Scholar
  21. Gilg O, Hanski I, Sittler B (2003) Cyclic dynamics in a simple vertebrate predator-prey community. Science 302:866–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilg O, Sittler B, Sabard B, Hurstel A, Sané R, Delattre P, Hanski I (2006) Functional and numerical responses of four lemming predators in high arctic Greenland. Oikos 113:193–216Google Scholar
  23. Hansson L, Henttonen H (1988) Rodent dynamics as community processes. Trends Ecol Evol 3:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacob J, Hempel N (2003) Effects of farming practices on spatial behaviour of common voles. J Ethol 21:45–50Google Scholar
  25. Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environmental schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleijn D, Berendse F, Smit R, Gillissen N (2001) Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 413:723–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Diaz M, De Esteban J, Fernandez F, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Jöhl R, Knowp E, Kruess A, Marshall EJP, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, West TM, Yela JL (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol Lett 9:243–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Knop E, Kleijn D, Herzog F, Schmid B (2006) Effectiveness of the Swiss agri-environment scheme in promoting biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 43:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korpimäki E (1994) Rapid or delayed tracking of multi-annual vole cycles by avian predators? J Anim Ecol 63:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korpimäki E, Norrdahl K (1991) Numerical and functional responses of kestrels, short-eared owls, and long-eared owls to vole densities. Ecology 72:814–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacDonald DW, Tattersall FH, Service KM, Firbank LG, Feber RE (2007) Mammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside—what are the putative benefits? Mammal Rev 37:259–277Google Scholar
  32. Mebs T, Scherzinger W (2000) Die Eulen Europas. Kosmos, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  33. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nentwig W (2000) Streifenförmige ökologische Ausgleichsflächen in der Kulturlandschaft: Ackerkrautstreifen, Buntbrache, Feldränder. Agrarökologie, Bern, p 293Google Scholar
  35. Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildl Monogr 62:1–135Google Scholar
  36. Palma L, Beja P, Pais M, Cancela da Fonseca L (2006) Why do raptors take domestic prey? the case of Bonelli’s eagles and pigeons. J Appl Ecol 43:1075–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reid K, Croxall JP (2001) Environmental response of upper trophic-level predators reveals a system change in an Antarctic marine ecosystem. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reid N, McDonald RA, Montgomery WI (2007) Mammals and agri-environment schemes: hare haven or pest paradise? J Appl Ecol 44:1200–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Revaz E, Schaub M, Arlettaz R (2008) Foraging ecology and reproductive biology of the Stonechat Saxicola torquata: comparison between a revitalized, intensively cultivated and a historical, traditionally cultivated agro-ecosystem. J Ornithol 149:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roulin A (1999) Natural and experimental nest-switching in Barn Owl Tyto alba fledglings. Ardea 87:237–246Google Scholar
  41. Roulin A (2002) Tyto alba Barn Owl. BWP Update 4(2):115–138Google Scholar
  42. Roulin A, Riols C, Dijkstra C, Ducrest A-L (2001) Female- and male-specific signals of quality in the barn owl. J Evol Biol 14:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmid B (2002) The species richness-productivity controversy. Trends Ecol Evol 17:113–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmid H, Luder R, Naef-Daenzer B, Graf R, Zbinden N (1998) Schweizer Brutvogelatlas. Verbreitung der Vögel in der Schweiz und im Fürstentum Liechtenstein 1993–1996. Schweizerische Vogelwarte, SeampachGoogle Scholar
  45. Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft (1998) Verordnungen über die Direktzahlungen an die Landwirtschaft 910.13, 3. Titel, 1. Kapitel, 16–24Google Scholar
  46. Shore RF, Meek WR, Sparks TH, Pywell RF, Nowakowski M (2005) Will Environmental Stewarship enhance small mammal abundance on intensively managed farmland? Mammal Rev 35:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Snow DW, Perrins CM (1998) The birds of the western palearctic, concise edition, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 886–888Google Scholar
  48. Tattersall FH, Macdonald DW, Manley WJ, Gates S, Feber R, Hart BJ (1997) Small mammals on one-year set-aside. Acta Theriol 42:329–334Google Scholar
  49. Tattersall FH, Avundo AE, Manley WJ, Hart BJ, Macdonald DW (2000) Managing set-aside for field voles (Microtus agrestis). Biol Conserv 96:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor IR (1994) Barn owls: predator-prey relationships. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Tew TE, Macdonald DW (1993) The effects of harvest on arable wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus. Biol Conserv 65:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veit RR, Silverman ED, Everson I (1993) Aggregation patterns of pelagic predators and their principal prey, antarctic krill, near South Georgia. J Anim Ecol 62:551–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wakeley JS (1978) Factors affecting the use of hunting sites by Ferruginous hawks. Condor 80:316–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White GC, Garrot RA (1990) Analysis of wildlife radiotracking data. Academic, San Diego, p 383Google Scholar
  55. Whitthingham MJ (2007) Will agri-environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why? J Appl Ecol 44:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaël Arlettaz
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Markus Krähenbühl
    • 1
  • Bettina Almasi
    • 4
  • Alexandre Roulin
    • 5
  • Michael Schaub
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Conservation Biology, Institute of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Swiss Ornithological InstituteValais Field Station, Nature CentreSalgeschSwitzerland
  3. 3.The Ecology CentreUniversity of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  4. 4.Swiss Ornithological InstituteSempachSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations